MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944669719 · doi:10.1007/s11160-019-09562-2

A global review and meta-analysis of applications of the freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit

2019· review· en· W2944669719 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenzo Vilizzi, Gordon H. Copp, Б. В. Адамович, David Almeida, Joleen Chan, Phil I. Davison, S. Dembski, Fitnat Güler Ekmekçı, Árpád Ferincz, Sandra Carla Forneck, Jeffrey E. Hill, Jeong-Eun Kim, Nicholas Koutsikos, R.S.E.W. Leuven, Sergio Luna, María Filomena Magalhães, Sean M. Marr, Roberto Mendoza, Carlos F. Mourão, J. Wesley Neal, Norio Onikura, Costas Perdikaris, Marina Piria, Nicolas Poulet, Riikka Puntila-Dodd, Inês Lages Range, Predrag Simonović, Filipe Ribeiro, Ali Serhan Tarkan, Débora Fernanda Avila Troca, Leonidas Vardakas, Hugo Verreycken, Lizaveta Vintsek, Olaf L. F. Weyl, Darren C. J. Yeo, Yiwen Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaComisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Gobierno de MéxicoMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog RazvojaHrvatska Zaklada za ZnanostMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaNational Research FoundationCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceCentro de Ciências do Mar e do AmbienteSveučilište u Zagrebu
KeywordsBiologyMicropterusGambusiaBighead carpFisheryPerciformesNeogobiusLepomisCommon carpSilver carpHypophthalmichthysFreshwater fishIntroduced speciesEcologyZoologyInvasive speciesBass (fish)Cyprinus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) has been applied in 35 risk assessment areas in 45 countries across the six inhabited continents (11 applications using FISK v1; 25 using FISK v2). The present study aimed: to assess the breadth of FISK applications and the confidence (certainty) levels associated with the decision-support tool’s 49 questions and its ability to distinguish between taxa of low-to-medium and high risk of becoming invasive, and thus provide climate-specific, generalised, calibrated thresholds for risk level categorisation; and to identify the most potentially invasive freshwater fish species on a global level. The 1973 risk assessments were carried out by 70 + experts on 372 taxa (47 of the 51 species listed as invasive in the Global Invasive Species Database www.iucngisd.org/gisd/ ), which in decreasing order of importance belonged to the taxonomic Orders Cypriniformes, Perciformes, Siluriformes, Characiformes, Salmoniformes, Cyprinodontiformes, with the remaining ≈ 8% of taxa distributed across an additional 13 orders. The most widely-screened species (in decreasing importance) were: grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, common carp Cyprinus carpio, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. Nine ‘globally’ high risk species were identified: common carp, black bullhead Ameiurus melas, round goby Neogobius melanostomus, Chinese (Amur) sleeper Perccottus glenii, brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus, eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki, largemouth (black) bass Micropterus salmoides, pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus and pikeperch Sander lucioperca. The relevance of this global review to policy, legislation, and risk assessment and management procedures is discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Fish Biology and FisheriesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207